The value of an unbeaten record and the expectation of fans

So many times we hear and say that a loss doesn't mean much and criticise fighters for taking a supposed safety first option. Fair enough. We look at the oldies whose careers are littered with losses and make excuses that they fought so often and more than likely would have an off night. Also a valid argument. Those guys were fighting weekly for a paycheque.

But in todays game, when we look at boxers, we often look at who beat them and use that as a yardstick when analysing their greatness. But when that fighter is a fan favourite, that loss is excused.

We say that Groves exposed DeGale. Exposed as what? Its not like Groves is some useless clubfighter. Groves is class. Fact is many dont like Degale and use that razor thin loss to beat him with (I had GG winning by a round)..

We look at Floyd and see his zero and many will claim he is top 20 ATG. Maybe so. Then we look at Pernell. A few losses and a couple of close decisions losses and a couple of outright robberies. Moreover his losses were at a time when he was above his best weight and slowing down. And its only recently that many are looking at his career and appreciating it more.

So what does a loss mean anyway?

Not much to the purist, but to the armchair fan alot apparently

In the present tense I think fighters are like stocks and wins and losses raise and lower the value of those stocks. Fans are fickle in general and place alot of emphasis on these in the short term. Losses are more significant in this day and age because fighters compete less often and a loss can set your career back more and damage the value of your stock alot more than in past eras.

In terms of the overall evaluating a fighters overall career I think the answer is it depends on many different things.

Incidentally, I never thought Whitakers appreciation, or lack of it was down to his losses. More a general underappreciation of his career as the article by Chris highlights.

Good article (thus far az. Eyebrows furrowed in suspicion at your intentions).

I don't believe that any of Whittaker's losses matter all that much. The first one was a crazy robbery, the draw was a robbery and the rest came when he was old and on the slide.

And even then, DLH was "lucky" or - shall we say - DLH edged a decision that could have gone either way. Personally I thought Whittaker won that fight all day. Sure - a pension-worthy whittaker went on to lose to Trinidad - but it was a brave, strong performance from the old man.

However - a different loss could wreck a career.

If Calzaghe had lost to Hopkins - there would be little aura around his career and people would compare him unfavourably with Hatton.

Hamed lost once and may as well have retired then and there. That took a huge amount from him in terms of prestige.

I still have RJJ as one of my greatest fighters of all time. I firmly believe that throughout history - there have been few - if anyone who could do what he did.

Sadly - his insistence on tarnishing his legacy means that we won't ever really see that on p4p listings. Maybe we could have forgiven him Tarver 2 - maybe even Johnson and Calzaghe as well.

But not Green. Not Lebedev. Now he's losing to people whose safety you would have worried for in his prime.

oxring wrote:I still have RJJ as one of my greatest fighters of all time

Stop baiting Coxy

Steffan wrote:

oxring wrote:I still have RJJ as one of my greatest fighters of all time

Stop baiting Coxy

Does he still read on here?

He's going to love my RJJ piece when it goes to press sometime in the near future then.

It's an odd one...

Ricky Hatton - Loses to arguably the 2 best fighters of the last 10 years and the majority of the casual fans call him a bum and he was never any good in the first place.

Lennox Lewis - Loses to 2 guys that on paper he should have slaughtered (ok they were avenged). But he is considered our greatest heavyweight.

Swings and roundabouts. I think to the "purist" or "hardcore" or whatever you want to call them, they will look at the list of names on the record and verify how great they were compared to their peers at the time (probably why the Klitschkos will be rated highly in the future).

But for the casual fan, a loss in boxing is a sign that the boxer is rubbish and should be embarrassed.

It's strange, you see UFC fighters with losses all over the shop and their fans never mind? Maybe it matters too much to some boxing fans. It certainly matters to certain promoters (who gave Ottke his fights?).

On paper nobody slaughters McCall, the man was impossible to hurt, could be outboxed but like Tua not a fighter to be slaughtered.

oxring wrote:

Steffan wrote:

oxring wrote:I still have RJJ as one of my greatest fighters of all time

Stop baiting Coxy

Does he still read on here?

He's going to love my RJJ piece when it goes to press sometime in the near future then.

Think he left for Boxingscene.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:On paper nobody slaughters McCall, the man was impossible to hurt, could be outboxed but like Tua not a fighter to be slaughtered.

Untrue, years of drug addiction hurt his career and Mills Lane hurt his feelings and he started to cry hehe

I think School Project that Hatton and Lewis are 2 great examples.

I always look at the calibre of opponent for instance Sven Ottke was unbeaten was he a more talented than De la hoya or Whitaker absolutely not.

I think age is another factor Shane Mosely is finished and his record is littered with losses but in his prime he is a handful for anyone,that's why like him or loathe him I have great admiration for BHop still doing the business well into his 40's.

But RJJ is no different from Shane - and every time Roy loses - you hear the chink as he slides down the ATG table.

Hopkins has already displaced him on most people's lists (not mine).

oxring wrote:But RJJ is no different from Shane - and every time Roy loses - you hear the chink as he slides down the ATG table.

Hopkins has already displaced him on most people's lists (not mine).

Totally agree with you, RJJ is one of the best I've ever seen,prime Jones gives anyone in boxing history a hard fight IMO.
I would alway's have him above Hopkins.

School Project wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:On paper nobody slaughters McCall, the man was impossible to hurt, could be outboxed but like Tua not a fighter to be slaughtered.

Untrue, years of drug addiction hurt his career and Mills Lane hurt his feelings and he started to cry hehe

So hilarious to mock the misfortunes of others isn't it?

It depends with RJJ wherther history will give him a pass for his losses since 2003. I think it will and even if Roy goes on until he's 50 being knocked out by bums it shouldn't affect his legacy at all.

Ezzard Charles for example lost to a lot of unheralded opposition in his final years but no-one seems to hold that against him.

RJJ is and always will be held in higher regard than BHop I reckon.

Haha Oxring, love the censorship. I feel like Gerry Adams!

As for RJJ, I think his career will be looked at fairly in years to come. SRR is considered the greatest of all time, despite his poor performances at the end of his career.

I think that on retrospect, some people question whether Roy genuinely fought the best out there at the time, but there's no doubt he could have beaten them.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:

School Project wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:On paper nobody slaughters McCall, the man was impossible to hurt, could be outboxed but like Tua not a fighter to be slaughtered.

Untrue, years of drug addiction hurt his career and Mills Lane hurt his feelings and he started to cry hehe

So hilarious to mock the misfortunes of others isn't it?

Can't say I was mocking him as such, just merely pointing out the fact that essentially... he could be hurt. But in regards to "Misfortune" I wouldn't call it that...

Misfortune:
a. Bad fortune or ill luck.
b. The condition resulting from bad fortune or ill luck.

I don't see any bad luck in his cocaine addiction - He was in control of his own life, he chose the path he took and as a result of his oh-so unfortunate series of CHOICES... decided to have a nervous break down?

I wouldn't call if hilarious no, but you can either laugh or cry. I'm not crying about it (humour is the best medicine after all).

Just how I found it funny when De La Hoya was caught dressed up in fishnets in a motel room.

School Project wrote:Haha Oxring, love the censorship.

What do you mean?

School Project wrote:I think that on retrospect, some people question whether Roy genuinely fought the best out there at the time, but there's no doubt he could have beaten them

And really - who didn't he beat around LHW. D-mich? I blame the ranking bodies more than Roy. Calzaghe? Blame is shared there as well - more Calzaghe's fault than Roy.

oxring wrote:

School Project wrote:Haha Oxring, love the censorship.

What do you mean?

School Project wrote:I think that on retrospect, some people question whether Roy genuinely fought the best out there at the time, but there's no doubt he could have beaten them

And really - who didn't he beat around LHW. D-mich? I blame the ranking bodies more than Roy. Calzaghe? Blame is shared there as well - more Calzaghe's fault than Roy.

My comment of banned members was removed - No big deal.

As for who Roy Jones and who he didn't beat. I wasn't really thinking of Calzaghe as such. I'm just highlighting that for some reason people hold it against him that he never fought Benn, McClellan, Collins...

It's something that you see highlighted all of the time in Doug Fischers mail bag by other fans. Personally I wouldn't hold it against him but some of the US Writers do. He had a great career. Plus there's no argument that he would have beaten any of the guys he was accused of "avoiding".

As for Calzaghe... any version of Jones Jr from before Ruiz would have beaten Calzaghe on any given night.

I think an unbeaten record has to be taken in context. Did the fighter take on all the toughest challenges or were they looking to pad their record by taking easy options. Unbeaten can sometimes equate to untested. I think there's more value in reversing a defeat like Louis did against Schmeling. He corrected the mistakes he made in his first fight and delivered big time in the rematch. Greatness, in my opinion, is about facing adversity and overcoming it.

Can't say i've ever seen McCall hurt by a punch but do carry on mocking his in ring mental breakdown.

Sorry School Project - wasn't removed by me and I didn't see your comments so - no idea. Ask a more senior mod/admin if you're concerned.

McClellan was lined up to get Roy next - so I don't hold G-man against him. Collins struggled to beat a shot-to-blazes eubank and benn so I don't give him much chance either.

Calzaghe against Jones would have been a great fight prior to Ruiz, the styles of the pair would make it a fascinating fight to watch, think it goes the full twelve rounds. Would be good to see how Calzaghe deals with being outspeeded and to see how Jones deals with being outworked. A close fight which could lead to a contentious decision.

Oxring - I'm not too concerned, it was funny more than anything

Ghosty - A fight with Calzaghe following the Woods win would have been tantalizing. It would have been a fight that I think that Calzaghe may have been a little green for at the time (circa 2003). I remember Calzaghes win over Mitchell which was a hectic fight and I thought at the time would show some weaknesses to speed.

It probably would have gone 12 rounds, but with Jones racking up the points early in the first 7 and controlling the ring throughout... nothing like their actual fight (which was 4 or 5 years too late ).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Calzaghe against Jones would have been a great fight prior to Ruiz, the styles of the pair would make it a fascinating fight to watch, think it goes the full twelve rounds. Would be good to see how Calzaghe deals with being outspeeded and to see how Jones deals with being outworked. A close fight which could lead to a contentious decision.

I dont see JC outworking RJJ here. JS is the busier fighter but RJJ's speed will make JC very wary of coming in. It would be a cagey and probably boring chessmatch with RJJ winning a forgettable night's 'action'.

Don't think Calzaghe would have been wary of fighting his usual way, he would have been by far the fastest fighter Jones would have fought, it all depends on who ends up fighting on the front foot, if Jones has Calzaghe coming on to him all night the speed advantage could be neutralized.

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Not much to the purist, but to the armchair fan alot apparently

Fully agree with that S.O.F. To me the devil is in the detail when it comes to loses, and in some ways how you lose is more important than how you win for me. Using Tyson and Lewis as examples, Tyson's wins were often spectacular, in his first reign he rarely lost a round, and always looked in control, well balanced etc, Lewis on the other hand often looked awkward, or gun shy, never quite looked the real and on the that basis you could conclude that Tyson should be rated higher than Lewis, but when you look at the losses it's a different story- Lewis got careless, got's KO'd but then easily avenged the defeats and showed that he was superior. Tyson however got soundly outboxed, out fought and ko'd by Douglas (unavenged) Holyfield (unavenged, then gets himself DQ'd when it's clear he's getting another hiding) then Lewis, (unavenge) and then when he's past it it basically quits against Williams and Mc Bride. The manner of these defeats is why Tyson fails to break into the top ten for me.

An unbeaten record looks good, and is the only thing that matters or defines a fighter to the casual, armchair boxing fans. I personally don't give a damn about an unbeaten record, look at the likes of Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, they all lost fights but were great, great fighters. Currently, Marquez, Pacquiao, Hopkins are all brilliant fighters with defeats, if Chavez Jr retires undefeated and keeps fighting tomato cans, it don't make him better than Hagler. I like to see a fighter lose, then get another crack at a world title because it is old skool, ie Macklin getting the Martinez fight after being robbed in Germany. And it was nice to see Murray get the shot at Rios on a big stage after he'd lost to Mitchell. Leonard would of beat Mayweather imo, but he had losses and Floyd will probably retire undefeated. Mayweather is a very, very clever guy and will no when to stop making comebacks though, i definitely disagree with McGuigan in the Boxing Monthly that he's not what he was, he was awesome against Mosley after being hurt and clinical against Ortiz, a capable hard hitter.

oxring wrote:Good article (thus far az. Eyebrows furrowed in suspicion at your intentions).

I don't believe that any of Whittaker's losses matter all that much. The first one was a crazy robbery, the draw was a robbery and the rest came when he was old and on the slide.

And even then, DLH was "lucky" or - shall we say - DLH edged a decision that could have gone either way. Personally I thought Whittaker won that fight all day. Sure - a pension-worthy whittaker went on to lose to Trinidad - but it was a brave, strong performance from the old man.

However - a different loss could wreck a career.

If Calzaghe had lost to Hopkins - there would be little aura around his career and people would compare him unfavourably with Hatton.

Hamed lost once and may as well have retired then and there. That took a huge amount from him in terms of prestige.

I still have RJJ as one of my greatest fighters of all time. I firmly believe that throughout history - there have been few - if anyone who could do what he did.

Sadly - his insistence on tarnishing his legacy means that we won't ever really see that on p4p listings. Maybe we could have forgiven him Tarver 2 - maybe even Johnson and Calzaghe as well.

But not Green. Not Lebedev. Now he's losing to people whose safety you would have worried for in his prime.

My intentions are good and honest debate as always. Why the suspicion?

School Project wrote:It's an odd one...

Ricky Hatton - Loses to arguably the 2 best fighters of the last 10 years and the majority of the casual fans call him a bum and he was never any good in the first place.

Lennox Lewis - Loses to 2 guys that on paper he should have slaughtered (ok they were avenged). But he is considered our greatest heavyweight.

Swings and roundabouts. I think to the "purist" or "hardcore" or whatever you want to call them, they will look at the list of names on the record and verify how great they were compared to their peers at the time (probably why the Klitschkos will be rated highly in the future).

But for the casual fan, a loss in boxing is a sign that the boxer is rubbish and should be embarrassed.

It's strange, you see UFC fighters with losses all over the shop and their fans never mind? Maybe it matters too much to some boxing fans. It certainly matters to certain promoters (who gave Ottke his fights?).

Hatton and Lewis are excellent examples. The difference is that Hatton lost to the absolute best. No shame. But the manner of his second loss has cast a shadow as to how great he was. Getting bounced by Foreman didn't affect Frazier's standings as getting bounced (and put to sleep) by Paq did to Hatton.

Lewis's losses were against run of the mill opposition and a list of excuses were made afterwards and bought wholesale.

Joe Calzaghe

46 tried......46 failed

There was no blueprint

Steffan wrote:Joe Calzaghe

46 tried......46 failed

There was no blueprint

Yeah but he should never be ranked above Hagler, Leonard who lost, being unbeaten isn't everything, simple as that.